The court emphasized the standard of proof in civil cases, the welfare nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the principles of compensation calculation.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per version of the petitioners/claimants are that on 6.10.2015 at about 9:00 p.m., deceased Ramjeet Yadav was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-03K-4091 for going from his house at Sector 26, Panchkula to District Courts, Panchkula to attend to his duty; when he reached near wine shop, Sector 21, Panchkula, where the road was under repair and there was one way traffic, then a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR03-P-5772 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by respondent No.1 - Tajinder Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Tau Devi Lal Stadium and hit against the motorcycle of deceased, as result of which, the deceased fell down and received multiple injuries including injuries on head; after the accident respondent No.1 -Tajinder Singh ran away from the spot; Ramjeet Yadav, who was in injured condition was removed to General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula by some passerby and brother of deceased and from where, keeping in view his serious condition, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and he remained admitted at PGI, Chandigarh from 6.10.2015 to 11.11.2015; FIR No.396 dated 4.11.2015 for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered with Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula against respondent No.1 - Tajinder Singh.

2. The legal representatives of such deceased, namely, his wife - Smt. Chandrika, aged about 40 years, minor son - Master Amar aged about 11 years, minor daughter - Ms. Khushboo aged about 16 years and son - Sonu, aged about 19 years had brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against respondents i.e. Tajinder Singh - driver, Gurpreet - owner and Oriental Insurance Company -insurer of the offending vehicle, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs.

3. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 41 years and working as Watchman with District Bar Association, Panchkula and in addition to that he was working as a Munshi with an Advocate there and he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as Watchman and Rs. 15,000/- per month as Munshi, his total income being Rs.25,000/-per month. They further stated that they had spent Rs. 1,50,000/- on medical treatment of the deceased before his death and Rs. 30,000/- on performing his last rites.

4. On notice, all the three respondents appeared. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a joint written statement, whereas respondent No.3 came up with a separate written statement.

5. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, they stated that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle and a false case has been registered against respondent No.1 just to get compensation. Refuting the remaining assertions in the claim petition, such respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Respondent No.3 insurance company in the separate written statement filed by it had raised various legal objections and took statutory defences contending that respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Such respondent also denied the involvement of the motorcycle in the accident. It prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Issues on merits were framed and the parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead evidence.

8. After hearing arguments, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) while allowing the claim petition vide award dated 23.11.2016, awarded a compensation of Rs.24,69,321/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization to the claimants payable by all the respondents jointly and severally and the apportionment and mode of payment are detailed in the award itself.

9. This award left the respondent No